The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-10-02
soarB NEW BooxA


The Ancient Citiss OF che New wsriA.
In o well-printed, large octave volume Of
more than 500 pages, bearing the above title,
and profusely illustrated. we have what pur-
ports 10 be the net result OF the explorations In
Mexico and Central America, conducted by N.
DEsrnf CHARNAY, whose name. BY the way. 10
misspelled on the cover Of the volume. That
Gessrs. Harpers, the publishers, have done
their part In tho effort TO produce work
worthy Of the subject, cannot DO disputed but.
although wo have not had the advantage ofsee-
Ing the original French. We do not hesitate TO
afirm that tho English translation leaves
much TO be desired. We might QUILL out scoros
Of sentences which arc not English, and which
convey no clear and exact meaning. There
arc also gross blunders in dates, and
Rlaring contradictions OF tho statements made
In ono paragraph By the assertions OF another,
which, II the translators be not responsible for
thom, should at least have been corrected By
the editor before book on which 80 much
money had been, and was to be, expended was
suffered to 60 through the pross. Nor do We
think that the author, who undertook to direct
scientific expedition ut the Joint cost Of the
French Government and OF Mr.. Peter Lorillard.
would have allowed the volume to go forth In
ito present incoherent and undigested form II
he had rightly estimated what was duo to the
generous promoters Of important inquiries, or
to tho reputation Of man aiming to be ranked
among scientific archBologists. More than
half Of the space at n. Charnay's dis
posal has By actual measurement been
wasted upon Irrelevant details, such
as might havo been supplied BY any
frivolous tourist or enterprising bagman.
and we seek In vain through the remainder
for lucid summarization OF data collected.
and clear. logical, consistent evolution Of the
conclusions reached. The author. the transla-
tors, and the editor will have to share tho
blame between them II this book, which should
have been the brilliant and enduring crown OF
O well-inspired and honorable purpose, 10 rele-
gated to a merely popular audience. and dis
missed on the score Of imperfect tntellieibility
and questionable value BY competent and can
did students OF American antiquity. These
are not pleasant words to utter. but they must
be pronounced by those who do not deem o
reviewers function limited to the dexterous
putting Of publishers wares, or the obliging
exhibition OF personal good will
We are far from implying that brains and
zeal were not expended. as well as private and
public muniflcence. upon the explorations
which N. Charnay was invited to direct But
these INQUIRIES were promoted and prosecuted
Lu0 pubic p6uouL, buus tuoEolOI0s tuok0 WOO
also ample room and an urgent call for the
display Of intellect in the presentation Of their
outcome. A theory Of the historical signif-
canoe OF the ruins which he visited n. Charnay
doubtless has. and It ia not impossible for Q
well-informed and resolute reader to discern
1t. though It Is rather let drop or interjeoted
than adequately developed and eluoidated. It
Is just because we think that the theory
thus indicated In fragmentary outline Ii
an approximation to the truth. and
that there are materials enough SCAT
tered pell-mell through the book to strongly
commend 1t, had they been brought to bear
effectively. that We regret tho serious short
comings Of this volume. II We here try to set
forth perspicuously and ooncisely tho funda-
mental elements Of the authors hypothesis,
and to show it's essential reconciliability with
the belief now entertained BY most skilled
Americanists-the belief that the most elab-
crate architectural remains Of tho valley Of
Mexico and Central America are logically and
historically deducible as Is the offshoot from
the parent. from the pueblos Of New Mexico
and Arizona-we do this for no othor purpose
but to repress the first impulse Of intelligent
inquirers to discard tho book on the soore Of It's
rambling arrangement and fippant tenor. and
to persuade them to uncover beneath the mass
Of trivia1ities the kernels Of useful discovery
and luminous suggestion.
What IL, then. the capital affirmation which
NJ. Charnay believes himself justified In max
ing after q minute exploration Of almost the
whole field OF interest from Tula In Anahusc,
to Palenque in Chiapas: Uxmal. 18amal. and
Chichen-Itza In Yucatan: Tayssal near the
border of Yucatan and Guatemala and to
Copan on the frontier Of Honduras. The last
named point and Tula are the two extremes OF
the long itinerary, and the distance between
them, covering more than ten degrees Of longi-
tude. was traversed not by the same route. but
by distinct roads, skirting respectively the At
lantic and the Pacific coasts. and correspond
ing, the author believes. to tho tracts left By
successive waves Of Tolteo immigration. N.
Charnay. as it will already be OWNED, re-
jects the once current theory that an inde-
pendent Maya civilization was at an early
date evolved In Yucatan. Chiapas, and
Guatemala, and that this was. by origin
and character. distinct from the Nahua civili-
cations tcalled Toltec from their eliminating
or predominant TYPED which developed them
selves on the Mexican plateau. where they
were encountered In their decadence BY Cor
tex 1t Is oontended by the author. and the
evidence Is loosely scattered through the vol
ume. that, between the architectural remains
in the valley OF Mexico and the most oonsum-
mate proofs OF tho so-called Maya advance
ment In the architectonic and plastic arts at
Palenque. Uxmal. Chichen-Itza and Copan.
there is not a single point Of fundamental and
decisive difference. but only such indications
of spontaneous and logical progress and i'm
provement as. with the lapse Of time and
advent Of encouraging conditions, would
naturally DO looked for. In q word.
all that survives and commands admiring
curiosity in Spanish North America is Toltec.
Not only was there no extra-Toltec source Of
civilization. but there Is no proof that tho CIV
ilization was anywhere. In any proper meaning
of the term. ancient It Is n. Oharnay's con-
viction. based upon all the tests which he L.
able to apply to the age Of their monuments.
that we must not place the first appearance of
the Toltecs. even In the valley Of Mexico. any
further back than the eighth century Of the
Christian era. Nathan doaa ha think ha would